This chapter describes various types of shuttle
services, including flexible-route paratransit, circulating shuttle buses, and
other special mobility services, jitneys and free transit zones.

Description

Shuttle Services include a variety of paratransit services that use small buses or
vans to provide public mobility. They are a type of Public
Transit. Shuttle Services include:

·Circulating Shuttles carry passengers for short trips along
busy corridors, including business districts, employment and education campuses,
and parks or recreation areas. They may connect major activity centers, such as
a transit station and a commercial center. Shuttle Services may be provided
during periods of unusually high demand, during Special
Events and as an overflow Parking Solution. Such
Shuttles may be free or require a small fare.

·Demand-Response paratransit
includes various types of flexible route transit service using small buses,
vans or shared taxis. These are more appropriate than fixed transit service for
some applications, such as off-peak service, or service in lower-density areas.
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)
consists of small, automated vehicles that provide door-to-door transit service
on demand.

·Special Mobility Services are demand response paratransit to provide mobility to
people with disabilities. They use vans and small buses designed to accommodate
people in wheelchairs, or who have other special needs (Universal
Design). Such services can be provided by transit agencies or non-profit
organizations.

·Jitney services use vans or small buses to provide self-financing,
privately operated transit service. Jitneys ply busier corridors. Riders are
charged a modest fare. In developing countries these are often a primary type
of public transit. In North America they often augment conventional public
transit.

·Mobility-to-Work programs often involving special
reverse-commute Shuttle Services between low-income neighborhoods and suburban
employment centers. These services may be operated by transit agencies, social
service agencies, or private contractors funded through government grants.

How it is Implemented

Shuttle Services are usually implemented by
a transit agency, downtown business association, developer, campus
administration, or businesses. There are many possible funding sources,
including transit budgets, local improvement districts, grants and revenues. Taxi Improvements can help implement Shuttle Services. Regulatory Reforms may be needed to eliminate restrictions
private jitney service and other types of innovative Shuttle Services that
could be provided by private companies.

Travel Impacts

Travel impacts vary depending on
circumstances. Shuttles can substitute for part or all of a vehicle trip, and
can support many other TDM strategies. For example, circulation Shuttles in
commercial centers or resort areas may allow more people to use alternative
transportation rather than a car or taxi. Shuttle buses often increase use of
public transit, ridesharing and non-motorized transport. Spielberg and Pratt
(2004) describe various factors affecting the travel impacts of demand response
transit services, including feeder service to main transit routes, and special
mobility services. They find that where such service is provided, demand
typically averages 2 to 3 annual trips per capita, with higher rates in more
urbanized areas. Demand for special mobility services for people with
significant disabilities averages about 0.25 annual rides per capita.

Benefits And Costs

Shuttle service benefits depend on the type
of service, the type of users, and other factors (Social
Benefits of Public Transit). Shuttle Services can provide mobility for
non-drivers and people who use alternative modes, substitute for automobile
trips, support other TDM strategies, and allow the use of off-site parking
spaces. Since Shuttles are most often provided at times and in places where
demand is high, they can provide significant congestion reduction benefits.
They can reduce parking demand when they substitute for entire car trips, or
they can shift parking to less expensive locations. They usually provide
consumer savings and increase Transport Choice. They
provide safety and environmental benefits to the degree that they reduce total
motor vehicle travel. Some Shuttles, such as paratransit service for people
with disabilities, cause little or no reduction in automobile travel, their
benefits consist primarily of improved mobility for people who are
transportation disadvantaged.

Costs are primarily the expenses of
operating the Shuttle Services. Spielberg and Pratt (2004) discuss the costs of
these services. Since Shuttle vehicles themselves impose externalities (roadway
costs, accident risk, pollution, etc.) they may provide little benefit if they
fail to attract riders and do not reduce overall motor vehicle use.

Equity Impacts

Equity impacts vary depending on the type
of service. Most Shuttles serve the general public (i.e., anybody can use
them), although they usually benefit some groups more than others. Shuttle
Services often require subsidies, although some are self-financing. Some
Shuttles provide affordable mobility to lower-income and transportation
disadvantaged people. Many improve basic mobility by providing transport to
education, employment and medical services.

Applications

Circulation Shuttles are most appropriate
in activity centers during periods of heavy demand, particularly if there are
significant traffic or parking problems, including large commercial and
employment centers, college campuses, and resort communities. Paratransit
services are appropriate in almost any community.

Stakeholders

Shuttle Services require support of a lead
organization, such as a transit agency or downtown association, and a funding
source. Merchant groups, employers, and user groups may be involved in planning
and supporting the service.

Barriers To Implementation

Shuttle Services require support and
funding. There is sometimes opposition from transit drivers’ organizations who
oppose the use of lower-wage drivers. Motor carrier regulations limit
development of Shuttle Services in many jurisdictions.

Best Practices

·Shuttles should be
implemented as part of an overall TDM program that includes pedestrian and
transit service improvements, marketing, parking management and pricing, and
other appropriate strategies.

·Shuttle Services should
be considered when planning events or centers that will generate heavy traffic,
and as a way to deal with transportation problems during special times or
events.

·Motor Vehicle Carrier
regulations should be reformed to allow private companies to provide jitney
service, particularly where such service does not complete directly for
curbspace with existing scheduled transit services.

After completing
one room, a carpet installer takes a cigarette break. Finding them missing
from his pocket he begins searching, only to notice a small lump in the
just-installed carpet. Not wanting to rip up his work for a lousy pack of
cigarettes he simply walks over and pounds the lump flat. He decides to forgo
the break continues on to the next rooms to be carpeted.

At the end of
the day he’s completed his work and loading his tools into his trucks when
two events occur almost simultaneously: he spies his pack of cigarettes on
the dashboard of the truck, and the lady of the house calls out, “Have you
seen my parakeet?”

Examples and Case Studies

The Chattanooga Electric Shuttle was
introduced in 1992, by the Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority
as part of a downtown redevelopment and air quality program. Shuttle service is
free. The electric buses used in Chattanooga’s Downtown Electric Shuttle are
low-floor buses by design, making them easy to access for individuals in
wheelchairs. With free five minute service between the Tennessee Aquarium and
the Chattanooga Choo Choo hotel, the Electric Shuttle provides the
transportation link identified as one of the top goals for community
development. It represents the largest operation of electric buses in the United States. Today, Chattanooga is one of America’s most livable cities due, in part, to
downtown redevelopment and investments in transit and pedestrian improvements.

Urban Jitney Services

Private companies
provide “jitney” shuttle van services in several major U.S. cities, including New York, Miami and Pittsburgh (Poole and Griffin, 1994; Klein, Moore and Reja, 1996).
Some jitney services are approved by regulators, others are technically illegal
but ignored by local officials because they provide useful services.

Several federal
and state programs provide special Shuttle Services between lower-income
neighborhoods and employment centers. The U.S. federal government offers grants
to help establish and support such services.

Shuttles to Suburban Centers

Comsis (1993)
describes examples of successful Shuttle Service provided by suburban
developers between Metrorail stations and nearby suburban
retail/office/residential centers (Tyson’s II and Fair Lakes). Twenty-five
passenger buses carry residents to the station, and employees from the station
to the malls. One system charged a 50¢ per trip fare that covered about 40% of
total operating costs. Another Shuttle Service is free.

Shuttle bus
service is provided in Boulder, Colorado to facilitate downtown shopping and
non-automobile commuting. The “Hop” bus is a circulator Shuttle that makes a
loop through central Boulder. The “Skip” bus makes regular runs on a major
north/south arterial.

Atlantic City Jitney

The 190 members of
the Atlantic City Jitney Association (ACJA) each owns and operates a 13-seat
van that provides public transit service for $1.50 per trip along a 3-1/2 mile
route through Atlantic City, New Jersey. Buying into the ACJA costs $180,000,
which includes the price of a bus and a share of the franchise. The ACJA
jitneys provide 8.5 million trips per year. The ACJA is the last continuously-operating
jitney service in the U.S., out of 435 that existed in the 1920s.

The Microsoft
Corporation has approximately 40 thousand workers (employees and contractors)
in 13 million square feet of office space dispersed around the Puget Sound
(Seattle, Washington) region, including its 500 acre Redmond campus which
contains 94 buildings, with 23 cafes, and various employee services and retail
outlets. Employee parking is generally unpriced at these worksites. In order to
reduce commuting costs for both employees and their communities, since 1995 Microsoft
has implemented an extensive Commute Trip Reduction
program that encourages employees to use efficient travel options. This
includes the following incentives:

In addition,
starting September 2007 Micorsoft began offering its employees free Connector
Bus services between residential areas where large numbers of employees live
and their major employment centers. Coaches provide premium-quality features
such as guaranteed, reclining seats with generous legroom, 110 volt power at
each seat, on-board wireless Internet and GPS services. These buses made use of
the region’s extensive HOV Priority lanes, making them
time competitive with automobile travel. By 2009 this service had:

55 buses on 19
routes making 85 total daily round trips.

94% on time
performance

5,642/capacity/day

Average 3,650
riders/day

Ridership increased significantly as fuel
prices increased during 2008, indicating that even relatively high-income
professionals will respond to financial incentives such as increased fuel,
parking and insurance pricing, provided that they have high quality
alternatives that save time and increase productivity. Rider surveys have
determined that over 60% of Connector riders were former SOV drivers and had
not previously commuted by public transit.

Fred Meyer Vanpools: One-Stop Commuting

When the I-5
bridge over the Columbia River closed for repair in 1997, the Fred Meyers
corporation established a vanpool program to help their employees get to work
in Portland. The company leases 15-person vans, and pays all expenses (fuel,
parking, etc.). Employees organize their own routes, schedules and drivers.
There are currently 11 vanpools with 10 riders. The vans pick up riders at a
central meeting spot, usually a Park & Ride.
Drivers may use the vans for personal errands after work, and vans are
available during working hours for business meetings. The program coordinator
reports “Vanpoolers have told me they love the program! It relieves their
stress. They learn more about the company by riding with people in their
departments. They relax before they get home. It’s reduced their [vehicle]
insurance rates and cut their commute time in half.”

Rural Public Transit Service Options In New Zealand
(Cheyne and Imran 2010)

Research sponsored
by the New Zealand Transport Agency gathered data to identify the scope for
shared transport in non-metropolitan areas. It investigated the potential of
demand response public transport to increase transport options for
non-metropolitan residents, and help overcome transport disadvantage for
non-drivers. It analyzed rural community demographics to estimate demand for
public transit travel, particularly latent demand by mobility disadvantaged
people (e.g., the elderly, women, youth and the disabled). This research
highlighted opportunities for increased use of shared transport between small
towns and provincial cities by creating appropriate demand response services.
It concludes that there is significant potential for shared transport to expand
the transport choices for people throughout non-metropolitan New Zealand, and
for this new mode to enhance land use transport integration.

Pedestrian-Extending Transit (PEX)

Pedestrian-Extending Transit is a Shuttle bus service
designed to extend "pedestrian access distance - the distance a pedestrian
is able and willing to move in a downtown commercial setting." A PEX
system called SMRTram 7, designed by Village Technology, supports five
"convenience characteristics" essential for high ridership: Short,
consistent headways (period between trams) similar to elevators; sidewalk
orientation immediately adjacent to and level with the sidewalk; quick and easy
boarding, just as in an elevator; standing-passenger design (because of
relatively short trips; and easy-to-visualize route. PEX systems are explained
at www.villagetechnology.com.

Taxibus: Home Pickup At A Reasonable Cost

Sarah Dougherty, Montreal Gazette October 6, 2001

Jacques Gregoire
doesn't drive and, at 64, he doesn't want to start. Living on the outskirts of Victoriaville, Gregoire long relied on a friend with a car to get around. When that friend
passed away recently, Gregoire was stuck. But Gregoire is out and about again,
getting errands done and staying in contact with friends, thanks to a taxi
service that doubles as public transportation. Known as TaxiBus, the service
groups together passengers throughout the city, picking them up and delivering
them at more than 434 stops, using cars and drivers belonging to a local taxi
company.

Inspired by a
model set up in Rimouski seven years ago, taxi-bus services are catching on in Quebec cities that are too small to support a full-fledged public transportation network.
The subsidized service is an affordable alternative that has allowed many in
smaller centres to cut down on the use of a car for work, school and shopping,
or do without a car altogether.

In Victoriaville, a city of 40,000 just east of Drummondville, the year-old service has so
far been a smashing success. Ridership has well exceeded projections. “It is an
excellent service,” Gregoire said. “I used to pay about $20 for a regular taxi.
Now I pay just $2.50 each time, no matter where I'm going.” Now retired,
Gregoire uses the service at least three times a week, mostly to run errands.
His only complaint is that the service is not offered during weekends. (City
officials are considering adding a restricted weekend schedule.)

And unlike the
former bus service in Victoriaville, run by a private company that eventually
went out of business, TaxiBus routes are not restricted to main arteries.
Gregoire said he never used the bus because the nearest stop was too far away.
TaxiBus cars go right to the door of important city facilities such as the
hospital, CeGEP, libraries, arenas and shopping centres, and right around the
corner from major employers.

TaxiBus Inc. was
incorporated by Victoriaville's city council to oversee the service. It signed
a contract with the sole taxi company in town, Taxi Veterans, which put its 25
owner-drivers and their cars at the disposal of TaxiBus. An extra five drivers
were hired. Taxi Veterans, in turn, formed a company to run the dispatch operations.
The tricky task of coordinating the doubling up of passengers is made easier by
a software developed by the Quebec Ministry of Transport for organizing
transportation for the handicapped, which was adapted for taxi-bus services.

Emeric Bergeron, president
of Taxi Veterans in Victoriaville, says that although the company must
occasionally delay service to its regular taxi clientele to take TaxiBus
customers, his drivers like the arrangement. “Because of the large number of
passengers, drivers can work fewer hours and make the same amount of money as
before,” Bergeron said.

Meter stops at
last dropoff

Under the current
contract, the city pays Taxi Veterans the amount on the meter for each trip,
with the meter starting when the first passenger is picked up and stopping when
the last is dropped off. The shortfall between the price paid by the passenger
and the amount on the meter is made up by the city and a subsidy from the Quebec government. The provincial subsidy is calculated at 40 per cent of passenger
revenues. The provincial government's budgeted contribution for 2001 is
$88,900.

The city expects
its share for 2001 to be about $150,000, higher than predicted. Marcel
Laliberte, Victoriaville's assistant director-general, says the overrun in the
total cost of running the service - $400,000 instead of a budgeted $363,244 -
is in part because of a slightly lower-than-expected number of passengers per
car - 2.46 instead of 2.7. He hopes to improve that ratio with time.

Passengers must
buy an annual $5 membership card. In the first year of operation, Victoriaville has sold just over 3,000. And instead of paying $2.50 for each trip, users
can buy an unlimited monthly pass for $70. Children under 5 accompanied by an
adult ride free.

TaxiBus riders
must reserve at least one hour in advance. Cars are not equipped to handle
wheelchairs; that service is offered through a separate company. If TaxiBus in Victoriaville has had relatively few wrinkles to iron out in its first year of operation,
it might be thanks to the groundbreaking work done by Rimouski, the first city
in Quebec to have taxi-buses.

Private bus
company failed

Sitting near the
Gulf of St. Lawrence, on the river's south shore, Rimouski is home to 32,000.
Like Victoriaville, Rimouski had a privately run bus service that went out of
business in the 1980s. Rimouski and neighbouring towns commissioned a study
looking at various public-transportation options. The researchers concluded
that a conventional bus service would run a deficit of several hundred thousand
dollars, well beyond Rimouski's means, according to city official Jean Tisdel.

The city settled
on a taxi-bus service, which started in 1991. In 2000, 42 taxis made 22,000
trips and carried close to 63,000 passengers. A service also now connects with
neighbouring towns. Passenger revenues paid for 45 per cent of the total cost
of $337,894 in 2000. Provincial subsidies covered 21 per cent of the expenses,
with the city of Rimouski picking up 31 per cent, or $103,148. Sponsorships
made up the balance. Starting in 1998, the taxi company granted the city a
discount of 4 per cent on the meter rate.

Rimouski has had more than 30 inquiries about its
system from as far away as British Columbia, Tisdel said. In Quebec,
Sorel/Tracy has a similar system and Salaberry-de-Valleyfield hopes to
inaugurate its service very shortly.

Michael Roschlau,
president of the Canadian Urban Transit Association, which represents
public-transportation service providers and private manufacturers and suppliers
of equipment, said taxi-bus systems are ideal for smaller cities with
low-density populated areas. He said municipalities in Ontario and western Canada use variations on the Rimouski model, often to supplement fixed-route bus systems.

Luc Cote,
president of the Quebec branch of Transport 2000, a citizens lobby group, sums
up the many advantages of the taxi-bus model. “It's ecological, the service can
be run locally by the city, the equipment already exists, you don't have to
deal with a union and it generates business and jobs for the taxi company,''
Cote said. “And of course it gives users significant savings over owning a
car.”

Go Boulder (www.ci.boulder.co.us/goboulder)
is an innovative community transportation program with a variety of programs
that include shuttle services, conventional transit, ridesharing, walking and
cycling improvements.

Paratransit
Information Resource Center (www.trb.org/AP060/AP060.aspx) provides a gateway to information and resources pertaining to
current and emerging policy, planning, implementation, and operating factors
concerned with the paratransit modes.

This Encyclopedia is
produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve
understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project.
Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.